Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

I still don't see the point of having carriers for Russia...
Their presumed usage, backing up some remote ally of Russia,
is better served by selling/delivering some serious SAM/fighter/cruise missile stocks.
Even if a given ally can't afford all that, it's probably cheaper to give it away than try to fund CBGs.
Having a global naval presence is it's own issue, but that can be done with destroyers, cruisers, amphibs, etc.

Probably the most unique asset of a carrier is longer duration AEW, but besides future increases in helo loiter time,
there is other options like VTOL/fixed-wing-cruise or dirigible aircraft that can still operate from destroyers/cruisers/etc.

+These pics seem to still be showing conventional launch ramps, despite Russia supposedly researching electro-magnetic launch...
(EDIT: If Russia does intent to produce carriers, hooking up with Brazil to co-produce them like FR + UK once considered seems ideal)

mutantsushi wrote:I still don't see the point of having carriers for Russia...
Their presumed usage, backing up some remote ally of Russia,
is better served by selling/delivering some serious SAM/fighter/cruise missile stocks.
Even if a given ally can't afford all that, it's probably cheaper to give it away than try to fund CBGs.
Having a global naval presence is it's own issue, but that can be done with destroyers, cruisers, amphibs, etc.

The point is there for sure... Imagine stationing an air base out in the middle of the sea, that is exactly why they're so valuable.

Mike E wrote:

mutantsushi wrote:I still don't see the point of having carriers for Russia...
Their presumed usage, backing up some remote ally of Russia,
is better served by selling/delivering some serious SAM/fighter/cruise missile stocks.
Even if a given ally can't afford all that, it's probably cheaper to give it away than try to fund CBGs.
Having a global naval presence is it's own issue, but that can be done with destroyers, cruisers, amphibs, etc.

The point is there for sure... Imagine stationing an air base out in the middle of the sea, that is exactly why they're so valuable.

Even better if it can house quite a few S-500 missiles, as Russia's carrier history shows that they opted for a hybrid carrier/battlecruiser over a pure carrier arrangement, which makes them rather more formidable and survivable than otherwise.

George1 wrote:One reason would be for protection of submarines against ASW Aircrafts in Northern and Pacific fleet. Because submarine;s main adversaries are aircrafts.
I think they are useful but not in the numbers of US Navy of course. 4 would be enough

OK, but it's the same deal: Why aren't Russia's allies operating their own ASW in their own region?
Why can't Russia (and allies) send some ASW craft to operate from the bases of allies who can't afford them/whatever?
(semi-permanently if need be - still cheaper than the whole carrier project, never mind shipyard capacity issues)

And same as AEW, I don't see why frigate/destroyer-borne ASW will not have increasing capabilities re: speed/range/loiter in the future,
whether continued as (hybrid pusher) rotorcraft, or VTOL/winged flight or dirigibles for that matter...
Pushing the capability to the whole fleet, to in the whole yield equivalent results as whatever CATOBAR solution one imagines...
Except now ANY naval task force has that defense always ready, instead of being dependent on carrier being available.
That also has the advantage of more duplication/depth, rather than hoping the enemy doesn't decide to open by taking down
the few precious CTOL ASW assets you have to launch from carrier, distributed ASW can be shuffled around within a fleet.

The only rationale I can see is positing that Russia would want to intervene in some conflict NOT involving an existing ally,
but adopting that posture just promotes countries NOT becoming/strengthening as allies "beforehand",
in other words, that Russia would be engaging wars NOT for sake of an ally, but simply to oppose the given enemy...
Which might make sense if Russia was trying to replay the Cold War, but every strategic perspective coming out of Russia
is all about "multi polarity" with network effects not wholly dependent on any one node,
and Russia doesn't need to DO anything for the global reality to shift more and more in it's favor in that regard,
BRICS + rest of world PPP and defence capacity will naturally become the dominant sector as a whole,
so why bankrupt yourself (or neglect other capacities) in order to play the monomaniacal global combatant?

@mutantsushi:

Russia does not intend to use the aircraft carriers in the same way as the U.S.

For the U.S., the aircraft carrier is the ace of naval combat and ship-versus-ship battle, and the signature of Naval Power at the global scale.

That mindset was formed by the devastating defeat at Pearl Harbor, and by further experiences in the war, the U.S. Navy develop the doctrine of using aircraft carrier as the core element of naval power.

But that U.S. doctrine was soon outdated due to the rise of cruise missiles and electronics guidance systems. Russia recognized the advantages of guided cruise missiles, and spearhead in the developing of long range, high accuracy anti-ship missiles to be used as the core element of ship-versus-ship combat. Thanks to that, Russia does not need aircraft carriers to deal with the enemy's fleets.

In other words, U.S. use the aircraft carriers as the core of naval power, both in air/sea dominance and in anti-ship naval combat. Meanwhile Russia develpop missile cruisers, fighter-bombers and bombers which can launch a devastating barrage of cruise missiles into the US fleets.

And the Russian way is much more effective, because current Russian cruise missiles have very very long range, excellent accuracy, and very cunning trajectory. Russian Slava, Kirov or Tu-xx can open fire at a very safe range where current F-18 can never reach.

========================
========================
========================

For Russia, an aircraft carrier is just a floating airfield at the sea, to increase the reach of air forces toward the big oceans. Just it.

A sustainable airfield at the middle of the sea can provide quite a number of good things. For example enhance the dominance and control at a certain sea area. Not neccessary a global control in a far far away sea region, Russia can design an use the carriers for adjacent sea areas.

Russian aircraft carriers will provide more places for helicopters like Alligator or Helix, which are suitable for both combat roles and AWACS roles. Of course fixed wingers like Su-27/30/33/34/35 or MiG-29/35 can use these sea airfields without any problems.

And unlike the U.S. carriers which have very little self-defense, Russian carriers have great level of armour and strong defense, at the level of cruisers.

And the role of Russian carriers is also similar to a cruiser, that is increase and enhance the control and dominance at the sea regions. The role of anti-ship battles is appointed to the missile battleships like Slava or Kirov.

===================================

I would like to say sorry to my American friends in this forum. I sincerely want to apologize. But I believe the design of U.S. carriers is damn stupid. And the way to use it is stupid, too.

First, the U.S. carriers are over-dependent on ejectors. In other words, no naval aircraft can take off without the help of ejectors.

Each carriers have 2 ejector. So in each turn, the U.S. can only launch 2 aircrafts. And then wait. And then other 2. And then wait.

Meanwhile, Russian naval aircrafts like MiG-29 and Su-33 do not need ejectors. Therefore, in one turn, Russia can launch 10-12 aircraft into the battle immediately.

Second, U.S. carriers have little to no self-defense system. That means it need a big group of smaller ships to protect. Without escorts, Russian cruise missiles can kill the U.S. carriers with little effort.

Third, is the way how the U.S. uses the carriers. That way is outdated as I said above.

The air defence of Russia is not limited to just aircraft... and neither it should be.

No matter the SAM system whether it is the 400km range S-400 or 600km range S-500 or all the smaller and shorter ranged weapons it is simply not practical to base a nations air defences on SAMs alone.

Britain learned that bitter lesson when it cancelled domestic fighter aircraft development in the 1960s because SAMs were going to protect Britain and her allies.

In fact you could say the US made the same mistake when it decided missiles will do everything so fighter aircraft didn't need guns any more.

If you want a coastal navy then you don't need carriers. Land based air power is enough.

If you want a blue water navy then carriers are essential, because they add range to your sight and your reach and greatly increase your persistence.

An ASW helo from a frigate might do a good job out to about 100km around the ship for maybe 4-6 huors at a time and then have to return a refuel. When it is looking in one direction it wont be able to search in other areas so that 100km is not 100km around the frigate... it is more like 20km around the helo where ever it might be at the time.

A carrier on the other hand can use multiple helos in multiple directions, with the potential for fighters to rapidly deliver sonobouys quickly to where they might be useful much faster than a helo could deliver them...

And lastly in peace time a threat blob on a radar 350km to your west is just a blob till you send aircraft out to see what it actually is... without a carrier you have to wait until it gets to visual range... which might be too late. Do you shoot?

What about in war time?

What if it turns out to be an airliner full of the citizens of an allied country you mistakenly fire a missile at... the missile wont recognise it as a non combatant and stand down...

And not just aircraft, there are enormous numbers of sea traffic around the place, just ships and subs on their own have little option to have a look from very long range...

and Russia doesn't need to DO anything for the global reality to shift more and more in it's favor in that regard,

Lots of assumptions there... carriers give Russia the option of supporting an ally even if they can't get a land air base nearby easily.

[quote]For Russia, an aircraft carrier is just a floating airfield at the sea, to increase the reach of air forces toward the big oceans. Just it.

A sustainable airfield at the middle of the sea can provide quite a number of good things. For example enhance the dominance and control at a certain sea area. Not neccessary a global control in a far far away sea region, Russia can design an use the carriers for adjacent sea areas.

Russian aircraft carriers will provide more places for helicopters like Alligator or Helix, which are suitable for both combat roles and AWACS roles. Of course fixed wingers like Su-27/30/33/34/35 or MiG-29/35 can use these sea airfields without any problems.[/quote

Russian carriers are an outer ring for the air defence of vision and reach with fighter aircraft and anti sub helicopters to add another defense layer for ships to improve their protection from anti ship missiles and aircraft and of course submarines.

They add a layer that can be called back, that can make intelligent decisions and react in real time to the actions of the enemy and allies alike.

they add a flexibility and extra reach and vision that missiles alone cannot.

To defend early warning is critical and being able to act earlier against a mass attack makes survival much more likely.

You don't spend trillions on a new navy, but not bother to put up an electric fence around the border of your property.

higurashihougi wrote:
I would like to say sorry to my American friends in this forum. I sincerely want to apologize. But I believe the design of U.S. carriers is damn stupid. And the way to use it is stupid, too.

First, the U.S. carriers are over-dependent on ejectors. In other words, no naval aircraft can take off without the help of ejectors.

Each carriers have 2 ejector. So in each turn, the U.S. can only launch 2 aircrafts. And then wait. And then other 2. And then wait.

Meanwhile, Russian naval aircrafts like MiG-29 and Su-33 do not need ejectors. Therefore, in one turn, Russia can launch 10-12 aircraft into the battle immediately.

Second, U.S. carriers have little to no self-defense system. That means it need a big group of smaller ships to protect. Without escorts, Russian cruise missiles can kill the U.S. carriers with little effort.

Third, is the way how the U.S. uses the carriers. That way is outdated as I said above.

i disagree- if there is one thing they have clear supremacy over everyone else its in the carrier group.

not being able to launch as fast as possible isnt really that noticed on the battlefield(they would still have to perform some in flight checks while circling around the carrier anyway), and with the new EM cat that allow relatively unlimited launches(as opposed to steam that has to stop and wait for pressure to build up) they are gonna have parity will be reached anyway. but more importantly the catapults allow heavier birds like the much needed eye in the sky e-2, those would give you all the time you need to prep the fighters.

and not having self-defence systems isnt much of a problem, really when you have aegis ships all around you, plus some subs hunting around. however they do need something like paket for the torpedos- ASW is a biotch and a decent diesel electric sub could be the best way for some players with not that big of a budget to have a shot at cracking an AC.

collegeboy16 wrote:not being able to launch as fast as possible isnt really that noticed on the battlefield(they would still have to perform some in flight checks while circling around the carrier anyway),  and with the new EM cat that allow relatively unlimited launches(as opposed to steam that has to stop and wait for pressure to build up) they are gonna have parity will be reached anyway. but more importantly the catapults allow heavier birds like the much needed eye in the sky e-2, those would give you all the time you need to prep the fighters.

I didn't mean the ejectors are useless, but the way the U.S. carriers use the ejectors is not suitable.

And about E-2... actually we can use helos like Ka-xx as AWACS instead of fix-wingers. Because helo can bring a much bigger radars than the ones of fix wingers. Fix wingers fly quite fast, it cannot have a big radars. Helo can.

higurashihougi wrote:
I didn't mean the ejectors are useless, but the way the U.S. carriers use the ejectors is not suitable.

And about E-2... actually we can use helos like Ka-xx as AWACS instead of fix-wingers. Because helo can bring a much bigger radars than the ones of fix wingers. Fix wingers fly quite fast, it cannot have a big radars. Helo can.

not suitable... in what way?

yes, helos can be used in radar pick n roll, however they lack the range and endurance and more importantly altitude compared to fixed wing counterpart. you can have really big radars but it doesnt help much when it cant see ahead much.

collegeboy16 wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:
I didn't mean the ejectors are useless, but the way the U.S. carriers use the ejectors is not suitable.

And about E-2... actually we can use helos like Ka-xx as AWACS instead of fix-wingers. Because helo can bring a much bigger radars than the ones of fix wingers. Fix wingers fly quite fast, it cannot have a big radars. Helo can.

not suitable... in what way?

yes, helos can be used in radar pick n roll, however they lack the range and endurance and more importantly altitude compared to fixed wing counterpart. you can have really big radars but it doesnt help much when it cant see ahead much.

In the way that U.S. carriers are overdependent on ejectors, as I mentioned before.

If the ejectors does not need to wait to achieve enough pressure then it is better. But if not, overeliance on it is not a good idea.

I believe Russia will incorporate ejectors in the design but without ejectors the Russian carriers can launch a good number of aircraft in quite good speed.

Fix winged AWACS have great advantages in range and operational time. But in order to get a big and strong radar, fix wingers have to be very big. Carriers cannot eject behemoths like E-3 or Beriev A-50. While E-2's radar is too small. It is not much bigger than the ones on Su-30.

https://servimg.com/view/19022405/16

Russia May Finalize its Flagship Aircraft Carrier by 2025

The construction of a flagship air carrier for the Russian Navy may be finalized before 2025, a Russian Navy spokesman said.

Russia may finalize the construction of a flagship air carrier for the country's navy before the end of 2025, the Russian Navy's chief of naval aviation Major General Igor Kozhin said, according to Russian media outlets.
"It will take up to ten years to wrap up the construction of the flagship carrier, which will include a whole system of state tests," Kozhin said.

He added that the aircraft-related research work is now under way and that several projects related to the vessel's construction are already on the table.

Earlier, the Russian Navy's Deputy Commander on Armament Victor Bursuk said that the new aircraft carrier would be built after 2030.

A number of experts believe that the construction of a new ship of this class will begin after the completion of the ongoing reconstruction of the Sevmash shipyards.

Right now, Sevmash workers are dealing with the overhaul and modernization of a heavy nuclear missile cruiser, the Admiral Nakhimov, the cruiser Peter the Great and the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov.



Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150215/1018305548.html#ixzz3RvxN3POU

And about E-2... actually we can use helos like Ka-xx as AWACS instead of fix-wingers. Because helo can bring a much bigger radars than the ones of fix wingers. Fix wingers fly quite fast, it cannot have a big radars. Helo can.

Radar performance is not just about size... the higher you can get that radar the further it can see, and of course a fixed wing aircraft can fly for longer than most helos can operate.

Not to say the Ka-31 is rubbish, but the main reason for developing a carrier catapult system is for fixed wing AEW and AWACS aircraft.

With new conformal AESA radar arrays being developed to fit into the shape of an aircraft rather than the other way around, very aerodynamic new AWACS aircraft become possible with no separate draggy antenna or dome... in the time it will take to develop a new carrier design it is possible their new carrier based AWACS aircraft could be a very efficient flying wing design with leading edge radar antenna...

Most American aircraft need cats for launching, but on the Russian carriers it will likely only be heavily loaded strike aircraft and AWACS aircraft that need launch assistance.

higurashihougi wrote:

In the way that U.S. carriers are overdependent on ejectors, as I mentioned before.

If the ejectors does not need to wait to achieve enough pressure then it is better. But if not, overeliance on it is not a good idea.

I believe Russia will incorporate ejectors in the design but without ejectors the Russian carriers can launch a good number of aircraft in quite good speed.

Fix winged AWACS have great advantages in range and operational time. But in order to get a big and strong radar, fix wingers have to be very big. Carriers cannot eject behemoths like E-3 or Beriev A-50. While E-2's radar is too small. It is not much bigger than the ones on Su-30.

https://servimg.com/view/19022405/16

well, you can probably launch twice the aircraft the murican aircraft carrier can launch in say, 1 minute, with russian aircraft carriers. only problem is those aircraft can only conduct short-legged air defence missions- and with very limited number of air to air munitions. with cats, you get to truly unlock the capabilities of your fighters- they can take off with full fuel, with optimum weapons load and could even carry some helpers like jammer or targeting pods.

with cats, you get to truly unlock the capabilities of your fighters- they can take off with full fuel, with optimum weapons load and could even carry some helpers like jammer or targeting pods.

The MiG-29K does not need cats to take off with full weapons and fuel, so cats would make little difference except slow down the launch of MiGs... which can get airborne from all four take off points on the K.

GarryB wrote:

And about E-2... actually we can use helos like Ka-xx as AWACS instead of fix-wingers. Because helo can bring a much bigger radars than the ones of fix wingers. Fix wingers fly quite fast, it cannot have a big radars. Helo can.

Radar performance is not just about size... the higher you can get that radar the further it can see, and of course a fixed wing aircraft can fly for longer than most helos can operate.

Not to say the Ka-31 is rubbish, but the main reason for developing a carrier catapult system is for fixed wing AEW and AWACS aircraft.

With new conformal AESA radar arrays being developed to fit into the shape of an aircraft rather than the other way around, very aerodynamic new AWACS aircraft become possible with no separate draggy antenna or dome... in the time it will take to develop a new carrier design it is possible their new carrier based AWACS aircraft could be a very efficient flying wing design with leading edge radar antenna...

Most American aircraft need cats for launching, but on the Russian carriers it will likely only be heavily loaded strike aircraft and AWACS aircraft that need launch assistance.

As far as I know, Russian radars on the warships are extremely big and use the extremely long wavelength, VHF or even lower. And these long wavelength radar waves can beyond the visible horizontal line.

GarryB wrote:
The MiG-29K does not need cats to take off with full weapons and fuel, so cats would make little difference except slow down the launch of MiGs... which can get airborne from all four take off points on the K.

dayum... didnt know that.

As far as I know, Russian radars on the warships are extremely big and use the extremely long wavelength, VHF or even lower. And these long wavelength radar waves can beyond the visible horizontal line.

And when that blip appears at 400km away what exactly do you do?

If you have no aircraft carrier there is no point in sending a helicopter to investigate... that would take 3 hours to get there or more... a small ship would take longer.

A carrier can launch an aircraft and get close and identify the target within 20 minutes...

Detection is simply not good enough on its own.

A radar can see down to sea level and it can see over small islands too, which block ship radar.

Did someone tinked to make harrier like aircrafts for russia? And what is the advantage of using long wavelenght radars? The shorters are accurate? Point is you could mount them on a helicopter but that means low speed after launch wich makes planes fly until helicopters reach target. Until then own radar could be use. Point is also that the aircrafts on a carrier are different from those of land launch. Because of the carrier that itself reduce the distance the autonomy of aircrafts is limited leaving place for others things inside them than fuel.

GarryB wrote:

As far as I know, Russian radars on the warships are extremely big and use the extremely long wavelength, VHF or even lower. And these long wavelength radar waves can beyond the visible horizontal line.

And when that blip appears at 400km away what exactly do you do?

If you have no aircraft carrier there is no point in sending a helicopter to investigate... that would take 3 hours to get there or more... a small ship would take longer.

A carrier can launch an aircraft and get close and identify the target within 20 minutes...

Detection is simply not good enough on its own.

A radar can see down to sea level and it can see over small islands too, which block ship radar.

instead a carrier subs can be sent. Equiped whit water-to-air missiles they would do great. Know..... Water-to-air is kinda weird...... but is a term i just invented.

GarryB wrote:

And about E-2... actually we can use helos like Ka-xx as AWACS instead of fix-wingers. Because helo can bring a much bigger radars than the ones of fix wingers. Fix wingers fly quite fast, it cannot have a big radars. Helo can.

Radar performance is not just about size... the higher you can get that radar the further it can see, and of course a fixed wing aircraft can fly for longer than most helos can operate.

Not to say the Ka-31 is rubbish, but the main reason for developing a carrier catapult system is for fixed wing AEW and AWACS aircraft.

With new conformal AESA radar arrays being developed to fit into the shape of an aircraft rather than the other way around, very aerodynamic new AWACS aircraft become possible with no separate draggy antenna or dome... in the time it will take to develop a new carrier design it is possible their new carrier based AWACS aircraft could be a very efficient flying wing design with leading edge radar antenna...

Most American aircraft need cats for launching, but on the Russian carriers it will likely only be heavily loaded strike aircraft and AWACS aircraft that need launch assistance.

somehow the big high altitude bombers like B-1 B-2 can be used as radars. Their range is enough to fly whit carriers togheter and altitude could put them in safe by enemy aircrafts. Also not forget that instead of awacs satellites can be use or togheter whit. Also single weird units combinations between aircraft and helicopters can be use as radars.

Did someone tinked to make harrier like aircrafts for russia?

Tried it and quickly worked out conventional fighters work better.

And what is the advantage of using long wavelenght radars?

Better detection of stealth aircraft and weapons.

The shorters are accurate?

Modern digital long wave radars are much more accurate than they used to be.

instead a carrier subs can be sent. Equiped whit water-to-air missiles they would do great. Know..... Water-to-air is kinda weird...... but is a term i just invented.

The lock on after launch technology used in AAMs like Morfei suggest a range of sub launched anti aircraft missiles could be developed to deal with enemy aircraft...

somehow the big high altitude bombers like B-1 B-2 can be used as radars.

They will be busy being prepared for any strategic mission... they wont be able to fly around the world shadowing carrier groups as eye in the sky.

BTW at a billion dollars each the B-2 would not actually be that much cheaper than an actual carrier...

victor1985 wrote:Did someone tinked to make harrier like aircrafts for russia? And what is the advantage of using long wavelenght radars? The shorters are accurate? Point is you could mount them on a helicopter but that means low speed after launch wich makes planes fly until helicopters reach target. Until then own radar could be use. Point is also that the aircrafts on a carrier are different from those of land launch. Because of the carrier that itself reduce the distance the autonomy of aircrafts is limited leaving place for others things inside them than fuel.

The advantage of longwavelength radar wave is that it neutralize the stealthy cloak.

Structure of a stealthy cloak paint is similar to a teeth brush. In order to absorb the radar wave, the "hair" on that "teethbrush" have to be longer than the wavelength.

That means a very long wavelength aka very low frequency radar can neutralize the steath cloak.

However, problem of long wavelength is the low resolution. In a same radar, resolution decreases with the increases of wavelength.

But in the same wavelength, radar with larger diameter provide better resolution.

So in order to boost the resolution, you have to increase the diameter radar. That means in order to effectively use the long wavelength radar (L-band, VHF,...) you need a massive radar.

That's why the radar on aircraft like F-15 or F-22 cannot use L-band and only can use X-band... because the nose of the fighters is damn small and you cannot put a big radar on that.

higurashihougi wrote:

victor1985 wrote:Did someone tinked to make harrier like aircrafts for russia? And what is the advantage of using long wavelenght radars? The shorters are accurate? Point is you could mount them on a helicopter but that means low speed after launch wich makes planes fly until helicopters reach target. Until then own radar could be use. Point is also that the aircrafts on a carrier are different from those of land launch. Because of the carrier that itself reduce the distance the autonomy of aircrafts is limited leaving place for others things inside them than fuel.

The advantage of longwavelength radar wave is that it neutralize the stealthy cloak.

Structure of a stealthy cloak paint is similar to a teeth brush. In order to absorb the radar wave, the "hair" on that "teethbrush" have to be longer than the wavelength.

That means a very long wavelength aka very low frequency radar can neutralize the steath cloak.

However, problem of long wavelength is the low resolution. In a same radar, resolution decreases with the increases of wavelength.

But in the same wavelength, radar with larger diameter provide better resolution.

So in order to boost the resolution, you have to increase the diameter radar. That means in order to effectively use the long wavelength radar (L-band, VHF,...) you need a massive radar.

That's why the radar on aircraft like F-15 or F-22 cannot use L-band and only can use X-band... because the nose of the fighters is damn small and you cannot put a big radar on that.

i have a question: can be used small diameter multiple radars and the final resolution to be made from the sum of all radars resolutions? Or this doesnt improve image at all?